Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the cost ($0.05) and the API key requirement, which are not in the annotations. However, it does not explain behavioral details like date range semantics or pagination, and the phrase 'typed' is ambiguous. Overall it adds some context but leaves important behavioral aspects unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently includes cost and auth information without fluff. The structure is clean and easy to scan, though it could benefit from a clearer separation of cost/auth and operational details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With three parameters and zero schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining how to use the parameters. It fails to do so, leaving critical context (e.g., default date ranges, limit behavior) unspecified. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-format ambiguity, but the overall description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain what 'to', 'from', or 'limit' represent. The mention of 'duration_minutes' is a result field, not a parameter. The description provides minimal help in understanding the parameters, leaving users to guess their meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (typed sleep/nap records) and mentions a key field (duration_minutes). It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_sleep_summary, which likely serves a different purpose. The word 'typed' hints at detailed records rather than a summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sleep_summary. It does not state whether this is for individual records or aggregated data, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred contexts. Users must infer usage from the name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.